The Benefits, Costs, and Paradox of Revenge

In this article, we examine the psychology of revenge. We begin by discussing challenges associated with defining revenge. We then review the relative costs and benefits associated with taking revenge. Although revenge can deter future harm, promote cooperation, and restore avengers’ self-worth and power, it can also contribute to conflict escalation and adverse psychological outcomes for avengers, such as depression and reduced life satisfaction. Next, we examine the prevalence of revenge. In distinguishing between the desire for revenge and act of revenge, we challenge the notion that the act of revenge is an automatic or pervasive response to injustice. We highlight four factors that influence whether victims of injustice choose to take revenge: the persistence of anger, perceptions of the costs of revenge, cultural and religious values regarding revenge, and the presence of external systems that can restore justice on behalf of victims. ‘‘Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell’’ – Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2 Even a cursory review of literature, popular entertainment, religious and legal writings, history, and current events suggests that vengeance is a pervasive and perhaps inevitable response to injustice. The theme of vengeance runs through classic plays and novels (e.g., Iliad, Hamlet, Macbeth, Medea, The Count of Monte Cristo, The Great Gatsby), high and low brow motion pictures (e.g., The Virgin Spring, The Godfather, Kill Bill), and religious writings (e.g., The Law of Talion, Exodus 21:23). Legal systems dating back to The Code of Hammurabi in 1790 BCE seek to curb unbridled or personal vengeance by prescribing socially acceptable forms of punishment. Texts from ancient Greece suggest that many people believed that revenge was natural and sanctioned by the gods (Griffiths, 1991). During the Middle Ages, blood feuds – retaliatory cycles of violence between warring families or clans – were customary, often persisting for generations (Fletcher, 2003). Today, blood feuds occur with considerable frequency in Albania (Lanchin, 2008), China (WuDunn, 1993), India (Majumdar, 2009), Iraq (Raghaven, 2007), Turkey (Rainsford, 2006; Schleifer, 2008), and Yemen (White, 2008), among other countries. In Albania and Yemen alone, revenge killings claimed nearly ten thousand lives in the past decade (Al-Shawtabi, 2008; White, 2008). Acts of murderous revenge also occur outside of blood feud cultures. Approximately 20% of homicides in the United States are apparently revenge-motivated (Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003; U.S. Department of Justice, 2006; Wilson & Daly, 1985). For every act of lethal vengeance, there are likely scores of more restrained acts of revenge between workplace colleagues (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001; Tripp, Bies, & Aquino, 2002; Wall & Callister, 1995), friends, and family members (Yoshimura, 2007). Many books (e.g., ‘‘Don’t get mad, get even: The fine art of revengemanship’’; ‘‘Up yours: Guide to advanced revenge techniques’’) and websites (e.g., boxedrevenge.com; getrevengeonyourex.com; revengeguy.com) offer helpful advice on how to exact revenge. Several Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4/12 (2010): 1193–1205, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00322.x a 2010 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass a 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Facebook groups provide victims with the opportunity to divulge unflattering information about their transgressors (e.g., The ‘‘Revenge is sweet’’ group). Despite this apparent enthusiasm for vengeance, public attitudes toward revenge are mixed. Some consider revenge to be an irrational act that has no place in civilized society (Elster, 1990; Jacoby, 1983). Others portray revenge as both rational and morally justifiable in the face of injustice (Cota-McKinley, Woody, & Bell, 2001; Tripp et al., 2002). Victims of injustice who spurn revenge may be regarded as either saintly or cowardly. Religious texts reflect this bipolar perspective. Revenge is both mandated (e.g., the principle of ‘‘an eye for an eye’’; Exodus 21:23) and forbidden (e.g., ‘‘You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also’’; Matthew 5:38) in most of the major world religions. In this article, we examine the psychology of revenge. We begin by discussing challenges associated with defining revenge. We argue that there is no clear standard for establishing that an act is motivated by revenge. Revenge is an explanation for behavior based on the perceivers’ attributions for the act. Next, we discuss the physical, social, and psychological costs and benefits associated with taking revenge. We then examine the prevalence of revenge. In distinguishing between the desire for revenge and the act of revenge, we challenge the notion that the act of revenge is an automatic or pervasive response to injustice. We highlight four factors that influence whether victims of injustice choose to take revenge: the persistence of anger, perceptions of the costs of revenge, cultural and religious values regarding revenge, and the presence of external systems that can restore justice on behalf of victims.